PCN due to the only machine being broken - 2016

Paulscarbs

The defendant is being pursued for a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) dating back to April 2016 and has today received an LBC (Letter Before Claim).

The defendant has read the sticky and notes that there does not appear to be a similar scenario whereby a faulty machine accepted payment but issued no ticket. The defendant, being overheard by another car park user at that same time, stated that the machine had been playing up for a few days.

The defendant welcomes any advice.

KeithP

You need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread which will give you guidance from this point onwards, including how to react to a Letter Before Claim or Letter of Claim.


Are you sure you really do have a Letter of Claim?
Does it give you thirty days to respond and include reply forms?
Who does it suggest you pay?

Who is the parking company?

Paulscarbs

Thanks so much for responding so quickly.

Yes, the defendant has a LBC and 30 days to respond. The parking company is PPS and has now received a letter from BW Legal (the third company to represent PPS).

The defendant has also read section 2 and will prepare a SAR but didn't see any other threads or posts about broken machines.

Coupon-mad

You don't need threads about broken machines.

You need to read the dozens of other PPS BW Legal threads as a pointer on how to handle the LBC and then how to defend the inevitable but crappy claim. Same as all the other ones.

Prinndogs' case is right up near yours right now and he is past defence stage.

As is the thread by DammitChloe.

Theirs are just two of DOZENS. Search the forum for BW Legal PPS defence.

As for the LBC, see the NEWBIES thread and put in a SAR to PPS, to see their hand, like the sticky thread tells you. Nothing will stop the robo claim but a SAR helps you see how rubbish the photo evidence is, and how unreadable the signage was.

You should also add to the standard SAR, that you wish to see the VRN lists from that machine, on that day, as the driver attempted to pay but the machine was broken. So you want to see the VRN record from an hour before/after the time of the entry, to see if a failed payment was recorded against this VRN and/or you want the DPO to tell you if the machine was broken and no such data exists (a nil return, no payments made by any driver at the material time).

Remind them that your VRN is your personal data so they must interrogate the machine records and show the VRNs/payments to discount or prove a fault, partial payment, etc.

Attach a copy of your V5C if you are still the keeper of that car, or other ID if not.

DO NOT write about who was driving.

No giving that away, if you know, nor on this thread!

The_Deep

The defendant has read the sticky and notes that there does not appear to be a similar scenario whereby a faulty machine accepted payment but issued no ticket.

Keep searching, I can recall at least a dozen

As you have paid this is a matter for your local Trading Standards Department. Furthermore if you have informed the PPC and they have refused to cancel, they are in effect calling you a liar.

IMO their claim is unreasonable. Why not consider a counter-claim for an equal amount, as, by accepting payment but failing to honour the contract, they are in breach of contract, (if a contract exists that is, it may be that frustration applies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Frustration+in+english+law&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1

as measures steps are being taken in Parliament to put these scammers, (very often former clampers), out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Paulscarbs

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You don't need threads about broken machines.


Prinndogs' case is right up near yours right now and he is past defence stage.

I tried searching for Prinndogs threads without success. Nothing appeared in the search. I did find some threads about broken meters though so am scouring these.

Coupon-mad

Prinndogs' thread was right near yours last night, as was Dammit Chloe's. So they will be no more than 5 pages back right now, and do not need any link! Just look back.

It's simple to find at least a dozen PPS threads simply by searching the forum properly.

If you got no results at all, then you either misspelled his/her username or you added extra words to the search, or you searched the whole of MSE instead of this forum, or you didn't change the default search to show results as posts.

If you put the single word Prinndogs into 'search this forum' (above the first page of posts, on the right, level with NEW THREAD in the headings), choose ADVANCED and change to show posts (not threads) you get loads of PPS threads.

Please please forget 'broken meters'. That's just a minor fact, not a PPS defence.

KeithP

At this very minute, Prinndogs post is number seven in the thread index list - two below yours.

Coupon-mad

No link given; newbies simply need to look down the thread list & read some.

Paulscarbs

It appears the letter in question at the top of this thread was a Letter of Claim!

The defendant has received the SAR from PPS but it included no details about the VRN with PPS claiming no personal data is entered into the machine. What about the defendant's money? Is this an avenue to pursue?

The defendant is wondering whether preparing a defence is the right thing to do at this stage?

KeithP

What did you find out when looking at Prinndogs' thread?